Exclusive War with Iran starting this week? (8 Viewers)

[Sheldon Shape]

You would have been labeled antisemetic for suggesting Israel drags the U.S. into war, and here we have Marco Rubio admitting as such.

The world's superpower is being controlled by a country the size of New Jersey.

Unbelievable.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Self correction would require war with Israel or at the very least, an absolute disconnect. It won't happen though. It's perfectly logical for those who know how to identify the problem. The U.S. is occupied by Israeli interests. Not difficult to understand.

The solution would be to disconnect before killing a bunch of innocent civilians in war actions.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand this perspective. Some bad people in government and a bad person did some horrible things.

So now we're going to kill civilians?

Insanity.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You would have been labeled antisemetic for suggesting Israel drags the U.S. into war, and here we have Marco Rubio admitting as such.

The world's superpower is being controlled by a country the size of New Jersey.

Unbelievable.

Which means the superpower should look within. Stop letting the little country control you.

It's unbelievable that any other solution would even be considered. Nothing else can be successful if we don't fix ourselves first.

*Edit* I'm going to be honest, I'm starting to get some Mel Gibson vibes...

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Self correction would require war with Israel or at the very least, an absolute disconnect. It won't happen though. It's perfectly logical for those who know how to identify the problem. The U.S. is occupied by Israeli interests. Not difficult to understand.

Do you admit now that the current administration are zionists?

 

[Sheldon Shape]

The solution would be to disconnect before killing a bunch of innocent civilians in war actions.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand this perspective. Some bad people in government and a bad person did some horrible things.

So now we're going to kill civilians?

Insanity.

Dude, you keep talking about killing civilians. Not me. They have nuclear weapons that they are not subject to inspections or regulations like every other country with nukes. You can keep your head in the sand all you want but that isn't going to help.

You probably think you can vote your way out of this too.

 

[2Fluffy4U]

You would have been labeled antisemetic for suggesting Israel drags the U.S. into war, and here we have Marco Rubio admitting as such.

The world's superpower is being controlled by a country the size of New Jersey.

Unbelievable.

Notice the word choice: not 'influenced by' or 'too deferential to' — but 'controlled by.' That specific framing — a small, powerful Jewish state secretly pulling the strings of a great power — is one of the oldest antisemitic tropes in existence. You're not at risk of being labeled antisemitic. You are antisemitic. The label isn't the problem. The belief is.

 

[PCmor7]

Let me try a different angle. Think about doping in the Olympics. For decades the system tried diplomacy — testing, warnings, suspensions, appeals, international agreements. And for decades cheaters found ways around every rule. Eventually the governing bodies had to ask a harder question: when the rules exist but nobody enforces them with teeth, do the rules actually exist?

Congressional authorization is a real and legitimate concern. But Iran has been in open violation of international frameworks — nuclear agreements, proxy warfare, targeting of civilians — for decades. The diplomatic toolkit was exhausted repeatedly. JCPOA was tried. It was cheated on. Sanctions were tried. They were bypassed.

History has a pattern: when a party consistently violates agreed rules AND blocks every enforcement mechanism, the choice eventually becomes either accept the violation permanently, or act outside the slow process. That's not ideal. It's not pretty. But it's the pattern from Nuremberg to Kosovo to now.

The authorization question is real and worth Congress fighting for. But the underlying question — what do you do when diplomacy has been tried and failed repeatedly — that one doesn't have a clean procedural answer. Sometimes the force comes first and the legal framework catches up. I'm not saying that's right. I'm saying that's what actually happens in recorded history, every time.

That's quite a bit of rationalization.

We had a deal with Iran. By all accounts, it was working. The only ones that didn't seem to think it was working was Israel, or, more precisely, Netanyahu, who has been telling us Iran was on the verge of having a nuclear bomb since, I think, 1995.

Diplomacy succeeded. According to Oman, which was acting as intermediary, diplomacy was succeeding this time.

Saying "everyone does it" as an excuse to do something bad is a faulty premise.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

Which means the superpower should look within. Stop letting the little country control you.

It's unbelievable that any other solution would even be considered. Nothing else can be successful if we don't fix ourselves first.

*Edit* I'm going to be honest, I'm starting to get some Mel Gibson vibes...

Fixing ourselves would require a complete dismantling of the government since they have nukes. You can evoke Mel Gibson all you want but eluding to antisemitism for every criticism aimed at Israel is how we got here and it isn't going to work anymore.

But keep it up. I'm sure you'll have so much more success with a Democrat in power.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Dude, you keep talking about killing civilians. Not me. They have nuclear weapons that they are not subject to inspections or regulations like every other country with nukes. You can keep your head in the sand all you want but that isn't going to help.

You probably think you can vote your way out of this too.

War is killing civilians. You advocated for war.

I'm opposed to war unless absolutely necessary.

You can't advocate for war without advocating for killing civilians.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

Do you admit now that the current administration are zionists?

What do you mean now? Any U.S. administration has been including Obama. You don't get the job if you aren't.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

War is killing civilians. You advocated for war.

I'm opposed to war unless absolutely necessary.

You can't advocate for war without advocating for killing civilians.

You've lost the plot. It is absolutely necessary. They have nukes and they just committed a genocide. If that doesn't require a war, nothing will.

 

[2Fluffy4U]

That's quite a bit of rationalization.

We had a deal with Iran. By all accounts, it was working. The only ones that didn't seem to think it was working was Israel, or, more precisely, Netanyahu, who has been telling us Iran was on the verge of having a nuclear bomb since, I think, 1995.

Diplomacy succeeded. According to Oman, which was acting as intermediary, diplomacy was succeeding this time.

Saying "everyone does it" as an excuse to do something bad is a faulty premise.

You're making some fair points, but the reply has real problems too.

First, 'the JCPOA was working' is contested, not settled. Iran was complying with enrichment limits, yes — but it never fully resolved questions about past military dimensions, continued ballistic missile development, and kept funding proxy (Hizbullah, Hamas) activity. 'Working' depends entirely on what you think the deal was supposed to accomplish.

Second, using Netanyahu's credibility as the primary rebuttal is a weak anchor. You can distrust Netanyahu's timeline AND still acknowledge that Iran's nuclear program has meaningfully advanced — more centrifuges, higher enrichment levels, reduced IAEA access. Those are facts independent of what Netanyahu said in 1995 or later.

Third, 'diplomacy was succeeding according to Oman' is a single data point from an interested intermediary, not a conclusion. Negotiations being active isn't the same as diplomacy succeeding.

Finally, you're right that 'everyone does it' is a faulty premise — but that's not actually what the original argument said. It said that when enforcement mechanisms are blocked repeatedly, history shows force sometimes precedes legal framework. That's a descriptive claim about patterns, not a moral justification. Calling it rationalization dismisses the argument without actually defeating it.

 

[2Fluffy4U]

You've lost the plot. It is absolutely necessary. They have nukes and they just committed a genocide. If that doesn't require a war, nothing will.

I would argue Israel is very terrible in Genociding then. Killing only 65-80K Gazans (20-40K presumed active Hamas). With nukes and superior military power! and in two years span!
You are correct. IRGC are so much better at it. Managed to kill around 32K civilians in less than two weeks - without nukes and without superior military power. They are far more efficient. We should let them lead the way in the Genocide competition and hopfully erase Israel ASAP. I hear you. You go Girl!

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[Phatguysrule]

You've lost the plot. It is absolutely necessary. They have nukes and they just committed a genocide. If that doesn't require a war, nothing will.

Once again, I would use diplomatic means first.

But you weren't talking about Gaza, you were talking about Epstein.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

Once again, I would use diplomatic means first.

But you weren't talking about Gaza, you were talking about Epstein.

All of it is connected. How do you want to use diplomacy with people who have unregulated nuclear weapons and have no problem raping goyim to blackmail our leaders?

That's like treating cancer with a bandaid.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Fixing ourselves would require a complete dismantling of the government since they have nukes. You can evoke Mel Gibson all you want but eluding to antisemitism for every criticism aimed at Israel is how we got here and it isn't going to work anymore.

But keep it up. I'm sure you'll have so much more success with a Democrat in power.

I don't allude to antisemitism for every criticism aimed at Israel.

I allude to anti-Semitism when somebody is advocating for war with Israel over Americans commiting crimes in America before addressing our own shortcomings alongside diplomatic solutions.

 

[Phatguysrule]

All of it is connected. How do you want to use diplomacy with people who have unregulated nuclear weapons and have no problem raping goyim to blackmail our leaders?

That's like treating cancer with a bandaid.

We shouldn't have leaders who can be blackmailed or bought. That's the first thing we need to fix.

We use diplomacy with nuclear powers all the time.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

What do you mean now? Any U.S. administration has been including Obama. You don't get the job if you aren't.

So you have changed your mind. You were adamant Harris was zionist and you weren't so sure about the current guy before the election.

It has been as clear as day that he has been all along.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

We shouldn't have leaders who can be blackmailed or bought. That's the first thing we need to fix.

We use diplomacy with nuclear powers all the time.

You're living in a fairytale. How do you want to "fix" leaders from getting blackmailed?

We just got dragged into war. A superpower. Diplomacy with Israel is dead. Wake the fuck up.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

I don't allude to antisemitism for every criticism aimed at Israel.

I allude to anti-Semitism when somebody is advocating for war with Israel over Americans commiting crimes in America before addressing our own shortcomings alongside diplomatic solutions.

Not gonna work. You're talking to someone who is literally Semitic. Lol

The biggest crimes in America are directly tied to Israel.

Nice try though.

 

[RR7]

Waiting on Iran to develop their nuclear weapons is like waiting on GPII to come back from injury. 2 weeks away from being 2 weeks away. Always.

It's been 30 years of the imminent nuclear threat from Iran. 30 fucking years they've been able to use the same bogeyman and have people believe it, which is insane.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

So you have changed your mind. You were adamant Harris was zionist and you weren't so sure about the current guy before the election.

It has been as clear as day that he has been all along.

You said administrations. And now you're talking about candidates. Trump has no ideology. He's dictated by money interests. The end result can still be the same.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

Waiting on Iran to develop their nuclear weapons is like waiting on GPII to come back from injury. 2 weeks away from being 2 weeks away. Always.

It's been 30 years of the imminent nuclear threat from Iran. 30 fucking years they've been able to use the same bogeyman and have people believe it, which is insane.

And let's be clear who was pushing this narrative.

Israel.

 

[PCmor7]

Why did America enter WW2? Nazi Germany hadn't and couldn't kill a single American on American soil. It was a foreign conflict on the other side of the globe. The moral and pragmatic case for intervention was eventually recognized as overwhelming. The 'it's not our government, not our problem' logic would have kept America out of Europe entirely. I don't think anyone today argues that would have been the right call.

What are you talking about?

The Nazis authorized unrestricted submarine warfare in 1939. U-boats were in U.S. waters within a month of our declaration of war (something the United States still hasn't done with Iran). German saboteurs were supposed to be in New York by June 1942. We were attacked on American soil by Germany's ally, Japan.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

You said administrations. And now you're talking about candidates. Trump has no ideology. He's dictated by money interests. The end result can still be the same.

I disagree and agree. He is a full blown zionist.

 

[PCmor7]

Finally, you're right that 'everyone does it' is a faulty premise — but that's not actually what the original argument said. It said that when enforcement mechanisms are blocked repeatedly, history shows force sometimes precedes legal framework. That's a descriptive claim about patterns, not a moral justification. Calling it rationalization dismisses the argument without actually defeating it.

It's EXACTLY what your original argument said.

You've been operating this whole time from a position of bias. You discount that for Oman but not where you are concerned.

Case in point: We had reports confirmed by Reuters and the BBC that an Iranian school had been hit in the bombing. These are not media outlets with a side. These are considered two of the most reliable outlets in the world. You countered that with vague information from a random Twitter post like that debunked it, whereas what it actually did was expose that you aren't remotely close to being dispassionate on this. You keep spinning things to justify the word of the Netanyahu government, which, as has been showing many times, isn't really looking to be "reasonable" or "honest."

 

[Sheldon Shape]

I disagree and agree. He is a full blown zionist.

I won't quibble with you on that, but the fact that Rubio admitted Israel dragged us in tells me Trump did not want this and did not take the lead.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

I won't quibble with you on that, but the fact that Rubio admitted Israel dragged us in tells me Trump did not want this and did not take the lead.

Epstein files: FBI memo says Israel ‘compromised’ Trump, Epstein had Mossad ties

Epstein files: FBI memo says Israel ‘compromised’ Trump, Epstein had Mossad ties

The document cites a source linking Jared Kushner and a religious Jewish group accused of seeking to hijack Trump’s presidency

www.middleeasteye.net

 

[Sheldon Shape]

Epstein files: FBI memo says Israel ‘compromised’ Trump, Epstein had Mossad ties

Epstein files: FBI memo says Israel ‘compromised’ Trump, Epstein had Mossad ties

The document cites a source linking Jared Kushner and a religious Jewish group accused of seeking to hijack Trump’s presidency

www.middleeasteye.net

Why would you need to compromise someone if they're already committed to your ideology? They have blackmail on him because he wasn't a Zionist. That's my read on it.